Colin Kaepernick isn't standing for the national anthem before football games. You know the story, you have heard the arguments, you have watched the TV pundits faint at the "outrageous!!!!!" comments of whichever fellow time-filler happens to be babbling alongside them on the panel.
Some are upset that he is making a political statement by not standing for the anthem. Guess what: Standing for the anthem is also a political statement. The anthem represents a country, and by saluting it, you are embracing that country on some level. If the act of saluting has no connection to the country and therefore to politics, should American athletes also salute the anthems of other countries? If they did, I bet those hounding Kaepernick would be furious.
Some are upset that someone who is "just" an athlete is making such a statement. "No one looks to Colin Kaepernick for social commentary," that sort of thing. I too sometimes roll my eyes at "commentary" from celebrities. I love DiCaprio as an actor, but scamper for the remote when he is interviewed so I won't witness his puerility.
That said, those standing for the anthem are also *just* athletes making a political statement. If statements are wrong when the come from those who are "only" athletes, then athletes hailing the anthem - a political statement - is also problematic. One could credibly say, "Who are we to trivialize what the military does by incorporating it into a mere football game?"
When athletes raise money for military or police charities, no one says, "Shut up! You're just an athlete."
I have heard complaints that Kaepernick shouldn't talk as he does because he makes mega money. What does his salary have to do with it? If he was sitting to protest being underpaid, it'd be one thing. But he isn't - he is sitting because he feels elements of society are unjust. He didn't bring money into it, his critics did.
On a sidenote, I expect Blaine Gabbert to start sitting too. Not during the anthem, during the game, because he is, well, Blaine Gabbert.
On Twitter: @greatmikepayne
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Sunday, April 5, 2015
It Takes Pseudo-Science to Sell the Sweet Science
Boxing is the most dangerous and dramatic sport of all, yet for some reason boxing is the only sport where the athletes have to give themselves nicknames to make the sport sound more dangerous and dramatic. Names like The Bronx Bull, The Hispanic Causin' Panic, Lights Out, Hitman, Boom Boom, Touch of Sleep, The Snuff Film Director (OK, I made that one up). There have been no less than 65,000 fighters who've used some variation of the nickname "Sugar."
But really, shouldn't it be the wimpier sports that need nicknames to heighten the drama?
Golf:
Rory "Don't Ask about His Backstory" McIlroy
Tiger "Left Little Red Riding Hood dying in the" Woods
Figure skating:
"Battling" Brian Boitano
Kristi "Yo Mama" Yamaguchi
Tonya Harding...actually, she's the one figure skater who already IS scary.
Chess:
Grapplin' Gary Kasparov
Bobby "The Fatal Flank" Fischer
Not only does boxing evidently need nicknames, but the fighters have to stage fake fights at press conferences to build up hype for their real rights. Without fake punches as part of the buildup no one will pay attention when the genuine punches start getting thrown. And the antics leading up to those fake press conference fights are only half a notch above pro-wrestling story-lines.
Michael Jordan didn't have to pretend to hate John Stockton's wife to generate hype for the Bulls-Jazz Finals. Montana didn't have to pelt Elway with a football to get people to watch the Super Bowl. It is a testament to how peculiar MAN is that fighting, the oldest and most primal sport of all, can't just be allowed to speak for itself.
But really, shouldn't it be the wimpier sports that need nicknames to heighten the drama?
Golf:
Rory "Don't Ask about His Backstory" McIlroy
Tiger "Left Little Red Riding Hood dying in the" Woods
Figure skating:
"Battling" Brian Boitano
Kristi "Yo Mama" Yamaguchi
Tonya Harding...actually, she's the one figure skater who already IS scary.
Chess:
Grapplin' Gary Kasparov
Bobby "The Fatal Flank" Fischer
Not only does boxing evidently need nicknames, but the fighters have to stage fake fights at press conferences to build up hype for their real rights. Without fake punches as part of the buildup no one will pay attention when the genuine punches start getting thrown. And the antics leading up to those fake press conference fights are only half a notch above pro-wrestling story-lines.
Michael Jordan didn't have to pretend to hate John Stockton's wife to generate hype for the Bulls-Jazz Finals. Montana didn't have to pelt Elway with a football to get people to watch the Super Bowl. It is a testament to how peculiar MAN is that fighting, the oldest and most primal sport of all, can't just be allowed to speak for itself.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
No Man is an Island...unless he's a quarterback seeking recognition
When it comes to how an athlete's legacy is judged, the degree to which championship wins are factored in varies widely by sport. In baseball, being a no-ring stat god alone, e.g., Ted Williams, is usually more than enough to be considered an all time great. Not so in basketball or football; especially if you're a quarterback. When it comes to quarterbacks, Shannon Sharpe will tell you: "You don't even get to get in this discussion if you don't have a championship."
Dan Marino, who once held nearly ever passing record, "never won a Super Bowl," and this is mentioned frequently as a serious mark against him. Meanwhile Joe Namath, a pretty mediocre quarterback, is a legend only thanks to a Super Bowl victory.
In football, this YOU AREN'T GREAT WITHOUT A RING criterion is especially goofy. No sport, not even baseball, has as much specialization as football. In basketball, the players play both defense and offense. Same with baseball; you field and hit (unless you're a DH/AL pitcher). In football however, you are literally one or the other. Eleven entirely different men get on the field when it is time to play defense. Dan Marino was never responsible for a single defensive play; in other words, he didn't participate in 50% of the game, but somehow he will never live down not winning a Super Bowl while playing on just one side of the ball. The very fact that Marino could break that many records and still not win a Super Bowl shows how impossible it is to do it alone. Given how many moving parts there are in every single football play - defense or offense - effectively pinning it all on one player seems a bit absurd.
Maybe in the days when football players played on both sides of the ball this criticism was more valid. But pretty much no one has done that since 1962. It might be time to move on.
This whole line of thinking can be smashed quite easily: tomorrow you're starting your own football franchise with your own dough on the line. Who you do want at quarterback: Dan Marino, or Jim Plunkett? Don't give yourself a hernia trying to remember who Jim Plunkett even was...
As for why basketball greats like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley get more abuse for not winning the big one than Ted Williams or Ken Griffey Jr., well, I think part of it is simply that basketball is now a much more beloved/discussed sport than baseball, mainly because of a guy named Jordan. And when people think Jordan, they think championships; six, in fact. His Airness remade the game, and others' judgments of the game, in his image.
Dan Marino, who once held nearly ever passing record, "never won a Super Bowl," and this is mentioned frequently as a serious mark against him. Meanwhile Joe Namath, a pretty mediocre quarterback, is a legend only thanks to a Super Bowl victory.
In football, this YOU AREN'T GREAT WITHOUT A RING criterion is especially goofy. No sport, not even baseball, has as much specialization as football. In basketball, the players play both defense and offense. Same with baseball; you field and hit (unless you're a DH/AL pitcher). In football however, you are literally one or the other. Eleven entirely different men get on the field when it is time to play defense. Dan Marino was never responsible for a single defensive play; in other words, he didn't participate in 50% of the game, but somehow he will never live down not winning a Super Bowl while playing on just one side of the ball. The very fact that Marino could break that many records and still not win a Super Bowl shows how impossible it is to do it alone. Given how many moving parts there are in every single football play - defense or offense - effectively pinning it all on one player seems a bit absurd.
Maybe in the days when football players played on both sides of the ball this criticism was more valid. But pretty much no one has done that since 1962. It might be time to move on.
This whole line of thinking can be smashed quite easily: tomorrow you're starting your own football franchise with your own dough on the line. Who you do want at quarterback: Dan Marino, or Jim Plunkett? Don't give yourself a hernia trying to remember who Jim Plunkett even was...
As for why basketball greats like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley get more abuse for not winning the big one than Ted Williams or Ken Griffey Jr., well, I think part of it is simply that basketball is now a much more beloved/discussed sport than baseball, mainly because of a guy named Jordan. And when people think Jordan, they think championships; six, in fact. His Airness remade the game, and others' judgments of the game, in his image.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Why "not being ready for primetime" will soon be a selling point
Magic Johnson - has there ever been a smarter basketball player? Has a point guard ever been more deserving of the label "court general?"
Surprising then that Magic is such a subpar basketball commentator. The guy sits there awkwardly saying unbelievably generic things in unbelievably generic ways.
Not everyone who excels at something excels at discussing it. But I think there is something else sabotaging Magic; I smell hours of "broadcast training" courses on him. He has been turned into a human laugh track in an oversized six piece suit. If he were any more canned, his comments would come out shaped like Alpo.
Magic appears to be a smooth communicator when he is being himself. Check out this clip for a remarkable contrast between Canned Magic and Real Magic. In this clip you see Magic in front of a reporter's mic, sounding like an inarticulate substitute teacher. Then a fellow player walks by and the two interact - Magic's verbal dynamism quickly becomes apparent. It really does sound like two different people speaking.
Part of the reason Magic Johnson's talk show failed was because he couldn't talk. On The Magic Hour he was stiff, lost for words, futilely scrambling to end sentences smoothly. I'm sure this is because some hack trained him on "how to be a TV host" and in doing so rubbed away his natural speaking skills. What too many producers/managers don't understand - and I think podcasts are exposing this fact to the world - is that there is more than one way to be ready for primetime. If Magic had been encouraged to talk like he did in the locker room; if it had been the The Magic Shit-Talking Hour, it would have been a much better show.
And then there's Phil Simms, the out of tune, AW SHUCKS NFL analyst that no one can stand. The guy's chatter is more painful than a late hit, and I think the same forces are at work. Listen to the beginning of this clip; listen to how fluid his banter is with Dan Patrick when he isn't trying speak like a broadcaster.
No one likes radio announcers, no one likes paint-by-numbers TV announcers...so why do we keep training them to be that way? Why have a color commentator if you're going to train him to be colorless? I have high hopes that the explosion of successful podcasts - complete with "unprofessional" modes of speech - will help put an end to this received "wisdom" about their being one "proper" way to speak on television. Ex-athletes are there to be ex-athletes, not Sotheby's auctioneers.
I don't know if Charles Barkley has had TV training classes. If he has, it doesn't show...which is why millions tune in to watch. I'm not saying Simms or Johnson would ever be that entertaining, but at least they wouldn't be wearing out mute buttons all over the country.
Surprising then that Magic is such a subpar basketball commentator. The guy sits there awkwardly saying unbelievably generic things in unbelievably generic ways.
Not everyone who excels at something excels at discussing it. But I think there is something else sabotaging Magic; I smell hours of "broadcast training" courses on him. He has been turned into a human laugh track in an oversized six piece suit. If he were any more canned, his comments would come out shaped like Alpo.
Magic appears to be a smooth communicator when he is being himself. Check out this clip for a remarkable contrast between Canned Magic and Real Magic. In this clip you see Magic in front of a reporter's mic, sounding like an inarticulate substitute teacher. Then a fellow player walks by and the two interact - Magic's verbal dynamism quickly becomes apparent. It really does sound like two different people speaking.
Part of the reason Magic Johnson's talk show failed was because he couldn't talk. On The Magic Hour he was stiff, lost for words, futilely scrambling to end sentences smoothly. I'm sure this is because some hack trained him on "how to be a TV host" and in doing so rubbed away his natural speaking skills. What too many producers/managers don't understand - and I think podcasts are exposing this fact to the world - is that there is more than one way to be ready for primetime. If Magic had been encouraged to talk like he did in the locker room; if it had been the The Magic Shit-Talking Hour, it would have been a much better show.
And then there's Phil Simms, the out of tune, AW SHUCKS NFL analyst that no one can stand. The guy's chatter is more painful than a late hit, and I think the same forces are at work. Listen to the beginning of this clip; listen to how fluid his banter is with Dan Patrick when he isn't trying speak like a broadcaster.
No one likes radio announcers, no one likes paint-by-numbers TV announcers...so why do we keep training them to be that way? Why have a color commentator if you're going to train him to be colorless? I have high hopes that the explosion of successful podcasts - complete with "unprofessional" modes of speech - will help put an end to this received "wisdom" about their being one "proper" way to speak on television. Ex-athletes are there to be ex-athletes, not Sotheby's auctioneers.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
All the football pads on Earth can't protect you from the demands of football fans
Football has supplanted Christianity as America's supreme religion. The games are even played on Sunday. But unlike priests and pastors, football players are extended little forgiveness by the congregation.
"Get out there and play!"
Fans complain when an injured player sits out. Then they complain when he plays hurt and doesn't overcome it. Fans whinge when a guy doesn't risk his ability to walk by playing with serious injury. The person who calls in sick to work with the sniffles is often the one who screams "Get out there and play!" Apparently the team physician who sees the players week in, week out knows less about their condition than the fan sitting in the upper deck watching the game behind a pillar. Do these humps not realize they sound like the ultimate slave-driving boss?
A football game has 60 minutes on the clock; a player crippled in his 20s or 30s has five or six decades of life he'll have to live with that handicap. The NFL is littered with casualties. A serious injury occurs every few weeks. Lots of ex-players have sued the NFL for being mislead about the seriousness of concussions. I know, I know, it's typical spoiled athlete behavior to not want Alzheimer's at 39. We cheer when someone plays in the Wheelchair Games We boo when someone tries to avoid becoming a candidate for the Wheelchair Games.
Fans complain about athletes being drug addicts; part of the reason players are hopped up on drugs is because they're expected to play hurt. Which do you want: Athletes who sit out more often or athletes carrying duffel bags full of pain pills? A little Oxycontin can mean a lot more yards per carry. Life has trade-offs.
Athletes get reproached for leaving college early; it's bad for them as people, sets a bad example for the kids, blah blah blah. Ask yourself: Would YOU leave all that money on the table? An athlete - particularly a football player - can have his career ended rather easily, but you want him to play another year or two of high risk college football to fulfill your idea of what a "well-rounded young man" should be?
The whole reason people get degrees is to help them prosper. A touted college athlete can leave after his sophomore year and prosper beyond the dreams of 99% of people who graduate. But you're right, he should stay in school (where he will likely be majoring in something useless like sociology) and blow out a knee instead.
Interesting, isn't it, the way the ideals of the labor movement scurry away when it comes to sports? A janitor shouldn't have come to work with a sprained ankle, but a guy whose (literal) survival on the field depends on mobility should? College athletes shouldn't be paid despite generating millions for the colleges while putting their health in serious jeopardy? Somehow it isn't exploitation when the name tag is on the back of the uniform instead of the front.
The irony is that because football is considered such a manly sport, you're given less slack when you sit out with injury (How ironic that there is a football play called a safety?) from the world's first or second most dangerous sport. When a tennis player cramps up and plays through it, it makes the news. Cramps may be painful, but how many people do you know who have been paralyzed by cramps? Djokovic cramping up would be a lot more dramatic if Nadal were allowed to hop over the net and tackle him.
Playing football under optimal conditions can lead to permanent disability. Imagine playing with part of your body already compromised. NBA champion Willis Reed is famous for playing hurt, Every time a basketball player plays hurt, they mention Willis Reed. The pain he played through, a torn thigh muscle, though severe for basketball, would be less noteworthy in the NFL. But that hasn't stopped Reed from becoming one of the most famous symbols in all of sports for playing through pain.
Contrast that with NFL legend Ronnie Lott, who had his pinkie finger amputated to avoid being sidelined by the necessary surgery. The NFL triggers enough perverse sacrifices to keep Lott's sacrifice from being the go-to reference for player toughness. Remember that the next time you strain your back getting off the sofa to change the channel during a bad Sunday for your team.
"Get out there and play!"
Fans complain when an injured player sits out. Then they complain when he plays hurt and doesn't overcome it. Fans whinge when a guy doesn't risk his ability to walk by playing with serious injury. The person who calls in sick to work with the sniffles is often the one who screams "Get out there and play!" Apparently the team physician who sees the players week in, week out knows less about their condition than the fan sitting in the upper deck watching the game behind a pillar. Do these humps not realize they sound like the ultimate slave-driving boss?
A football game has 60 minutes on the clock; a player crippled in his 20s or 30s has five or six decades of life he'll have to live with that handicap. The NFL is littered with casualties. A serious injury occurs every few weeks. Lots of ex-players have sued the NFL for being mislead about the seriousness of concussions. I know, I know, it's typical spoiled athlete behavior to not want Alzheimer's at 39. We cheer when someone plays in the Wheelchair Games We boo when someone tries to avoid becoming a candidate for the Wheelchair Games.
Fans complain about athletes being drug addicts; part of the reason players are hopped up on drugs is because they're expected to play hurt. Which do you want: Athletes who sit out more often or athletes carrying duffel bags full of pain pills? A little Oxycontin can mean a lot more yards per carry. Life has trade-offs.
Athletes get reproached for leaving college early; it's bad for them as people, sets a bad example for the kids, blah blah blah. Ask yourself: Would YOU leave all that money on the table? An athlete - particularly a football player - can have his career ended rather easily, but you want him to play another year or two of high risk college football to fulfill your idea of what a "well-rounded young man" should be?
The whole reason people get degrees is to help them prosper. A touted college athlete can leave after his sophomore year and prosper beyond the dreams of 99% of people who graduate. But you're right, he should stay in school (where he will likely be majoring in something useless like sociology) and blow out a knee instead.
Interesting, isn't it, the way the ideals of the labor movement scurry away when it comes to sports? A janitor shouldn't have come to work with a sprained ankle, but a guy whose (literal) survival on the field depends on mobility should? College athletes shouldn't be paid despite generating millions for the colleges while putting their health in serious jeopardy? Somehow it isn't exploitation when the name tag is on the back of the uniform instead of the front.
The irony is that because football is considered such a manly sport, you're given less slack when you sit out with injury (How ironic that there is a football play called a safety?) from the world's first or second most dangerous sport. When a tennis player cramps up and plays through it, it makes the news. Cramps may be painful, but how many people do you know who have been paralyzed by cramps? Djokovic cramping up would be a lot more dramatic if Nadal were allowed to hop over the net and tackle him.
Playing football under optimal conditions can lead to permanent disability. Imagine playing with part of your body already compromised. NBA champion Willis Reed is famous for playing hurt, Every time a basketball player plays hurt, they mention Willis Reed. The pain he played through, a torn thigh muscle, though severe for basketball, would be less noteworthy in the NFL. But that hasn't stopped Reed from becoming one of the most famous symbols in all of sports for playing through pain.
Contrast that with NFL legend Ronnie Lott, who had his pinkie finger amputated to avoid being sidelined by the necessary surgery. The NFL triggers enough perverse sacrifices to keep Lott's sacrifice from being the go-to reference for player toughness. Remember that the next time you strain your back getting off the sofa to change the channel during a bad Sunday for your team.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Guess you can't nurture foot speed
Just one white sprinter has broken the 10-second barrier
in the 60 meters; France's Christophe Lemaitre. His analysis of the
achievement:
Apart from Mr. Fredericks, everyone on this list is of predominantly West African descent. Mr. Lemaitre is the sole white man to break 10 seconds. No Asian sprinter has been recorded breaking 10 seconds.
"Of course, it was my goal to break it. One has to run
under 10 seconds in order to be part of the world's best. I will be recognised
as the first white man to do so, but today's achievement is mainly about making
history for myself!...It is not about the
color it is about hard work."
Hard work...that old staple. I'm sure you've heard it
too: you're having a late night conversation at the bar.
The topic comes up (usually in a hushed voice): why don't all groups excel
equally in sports?
Progressive "Nurture is Everything" Guy: The poor
and disadvantaged excel in athletics because they don't have
access to the other rungs of economic mobility.
Once or twice I've even seen a mote of sincerity in the
eyes of these people. If they truly believe this, one can only conclude
they are intellectually disadvantaged. Or blind.
I don't deny that economic status plays a factor. How many
prep school kids take up serious boxing? How many trailer park residents become elite skiers? But economics alone don't come close to telling the
whole (apparently uncomfortable) story.
Below is a list of the top 25 recorded times in the 100-meters. 10 countries are represented. Now Google Image these folks. Tell me if
you notice they all have something in common; despite the number of different
nations represented.
Spoiler alert: None of them resemble Rick Astley:
Rank
|
Time
|
Wind (m/s)
|
Athlete
|
Country
|
Date
|
Location
|
1
|
9.58 WR
|
+0.9
|
 Jamaica |
16 August 2009
|
||
2
|
9.69
|
+2.0
|
United States
|
20 September 2009
|
Shanghai
|
|
−0.1
|
Jamaica |
23 August 2012
|
||||
4
|
9.72
|
+0.2
|
Jamaica |
2 September 2008
|
||
5
|
9.78
|
+0.9
|
Jamaica |
29 August 2010
|
||
6
|
9.79
|
+0.1
|
United States
|
16 June 1999
|
||
+1.5
|
United States
|
5 August 2012
|
London
|
|||
8
|
9.80
|
+1.3
|
Jamaica |
4 June 2011
|
||
9
|
9.82
|
+1.7
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
21 June 2014
|
||
10
|
9.84
|
+0.7
|
 Canada |
27 July 1996
|
||
+0.2
|
Canada |
22 August 1999
|
||||
12
|
9.85
|
+1.2
|
United States
|
6 July 1994
|
||
+1.7
|
 Nigeria |
12 May 2006
|
||||
+1.3
|
United States
|
4 June 2011
|
||||
15
|
9.86
|
+1.2
|
United States
|
25 August 1991
|
Tokyo
|
|
−0.7
|
 Namibia |
3 July 1996
|
||||
+1.8
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
19 April 1998
|
||||
+0.6
|
 Portugal |
22 August 2004
|
||||
+1.4
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
23 June 2012
|
||||
20
|
9.87
|
+0.3
|
United Kingdom
|
15 August 1993
|
||
−0.2
|
 Barbados |
11 September 1998
|
||||
22
|
9.88
|
+1.8
|
United States
|
19 June 2004
|
||
+1.0
|
United States
|
8 August 2010
|
||||
+0.9
|
United States
|
29 August 2010
|
||||
+1.0
|
Jamaica |
30 June 2011
|
. |
Apart from Mr. Fredericks, everyone on this list is of predominantly West African descent. Mr. Lemaitre is the sole white man to break 10 seconds. No Asian sprinter has been recorded breaking 10 seconds.
If poverty is such a determinant factor, why don't we see
any U.S. Hispanics on this list? There are estimates that perhaps 1/4 live in poverty. What about
the poor South Asians who flock to the U.K.; why don't they become elite sprinters?
Where are the poor Arabs from France? Why does just one
"disadvantaged group" show up time and time again no matter
the country?
The disadvantaged group doing the elite sprinting is in a better position economically than they were in, say, 1974. So why haven't the demographics shifted a bit to reflect this? The last white sprinter to win Olympic gold in the 100 meters was Allan Wells in 1980. Last white sprinter to win the 200: Pietro Mennea, 1980. Yes, Jeremy Wariner won gold in 2004 in the 400, but did you have a look at the rest of the field? Which one of these things is not like the other? In 2012, the aforementioned Lemaitre was just the fifth white sprinter since '84 to make the 200 meter final.
The disadvantaged group doing the elite sprinting is in a better position economically than they were in, say, 1974. So why haven't the demographics shifted a bit to reflect this? The last white sprinter to win Olympic gold in the 100 meters was Allan Wells in 1980. Last white sprinter to win the 200: Pietro Mennea, 1980. Yes, Jeremy Wariner won gold in 2004 in the 400, but did you have a look at the rest of the field? Which one of these things is not like the other? In 2012, the aforementioned Lemaitre was just the fifth white sprinter since '84 to make the 200 meter final.
China and India make up more than 1/3 of the world's
population. Why hasn't a single sprinter from either country, poor or otherwise, broken 10 seconds? They
aren't capable of the same "hard work" as Lemaitre? None of them have
enough interest to pursue sprinting with the same dedication?
Given that Mr. Lemaitre studied industrial engineering, I
find it hard to believe he can't calculate how unlikely that is.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Why more reporters need to be punched out
After a celebrity explodes on a reporter, the news coverage that celebrity enjoys is about identical to the coverage they give escaped zoo animals. It isn't hard to undress the reason; fellow reporters are doing the covering.
But why do the rest of us buy into it? Because we've swallowed this notion about the sanctity of the press.
Even if you subscribe to the theorem that an energetic press is a "public good," I don't see how the entertainment press fits this criterion. Psychos with cameras do not enhance the national discourse, nor do they keep us free from the potential tyranny of overdressed eye candy on red carpets. A lack of Kim Kardashian stretch mark pics will not trigger another Watergate.
Let's remember how reporters cover celebrities: they swarm around them, doing all they can to catch them in an embarrassing moment. If they don't catch such a moment, they try to catalyze one. They will crowd the celeb and pelt him with unbelievably insulting questions. Sometimes they will push him.
When they say "shove a microphone in his face," they mean it.
Celebrities, or anyone with a camera in his face, remain humans, and humans don't care if someone is a reporter when they're being crowded and insulted. For those who think celebrities should just "get over it," picture how you would react if you were doing your morning jog and a stranger jumped in your face and said, "Talk to me about that time you fucked up so I can spread the word about it to other people."
It is unlikely you would offer him half your Cliff Bar.
You might rejoin that society makes exceptions in the social code for certain professions; e.g., a doctor being able to touch you in ways others cannot. True, but if a doctor goes too far with the groping, retaliation in the form of lawsuits (at the very least) is in order. If a doctor shoved you to try to get an answer about your health, no one would say the doctor was just "doing his job."
I want see more athletes giving 110% to attacking journalists:
I want to see more actors doing some method research on what it feels like to swat a camera-wielding oaf:
If reporters are going to cover celebrities who fight back like they're escaped zoo animals, it is only fair we should occasionally see a reporter mauled like a slow-witted lion tamer.
But why do the rest of us buy into it? Because we've swallowed this notion about the sanctity of the press.
Even if you subscribe to the theorem that an energetic press is a "public good," I don't see how the entertainment press fits this criterion. Psychos with cameras do not enhance the national discourse, nor do they keep us free from the potential tyranny of overdressed eye candy on red carpets. A lack of Kim Kardashian stretch mark pics will not trigger another Watergate.
Let's remember how reporters cover celebrities: they swarm around them, doing all they can to catch them in an embarrassing moment. If they don't catch such a moment, they try to catalyze one. They will crowd the celeb and pelt him with unbelievably insulting questions. Sometimes they will push him.
When they say "shove a microphone in his face," they mean it.
Celebrities, or anyone with a camera in his face, remain humans, and humans don't care if someone is a reporter when they're being crowded and insulted. For those who think celebrities should just "get over it," picture how you would react if you were doing your morning jog and a stranger jumped in your face and said, "Talk to me about that time you fucked up so I can spread the word about it to other people."
It is unlikely you would offer him half your Cliff Bar.
You might rejoin that society makes exceptions in the social code for certain professions; e.g., a doctor being able to touch you in ways others cannot. True, but if a doctor goes too far with the groping, retaliation in the form of lawsuits (at the very least) is in order. If a doctor shoved you to try to get an answer about your health, no one would say the doctor was just "doing his job."
I want see more athletes giving 110% to attacking journalists:
I want to see more actors doing some method research on what it feels like to swat a camera-wielding oaf:
If reporters are going to cover celebrities who fight back like they're escaped zoo animals, it is only fair we should occasionally see a reporter mauled like a slow-witted lion tamer.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
We've Retired Jordan's Jersey. Let's Retire the Search for the "Next Jordan"
If you pay any attention to sports, you're going to continually hear some prospect touted as the "next Jordan" or the "next Joe Montana" (but especially the next Jordan*). I realize that this is partly a marketing tool--Jordan's popularity elevated all American team sports--to keep people watching, but to hear it repeated so often and with such seriousness depletes your mental electrolytes. Because...
The NBA is almost seventy years old. If we accept that there has only been one Jordan in seven decades, it follows that we cannot reasonably expect a new Jordan every year, or every few years. Furthermore, when we say that all these "next Jordans" didn't live up to their potential because they didn't become Michael Jordan II, we are again talking nonsense. We attached a demonstrably improbable expectation to them, and then criticized them for not meeting it. "Oh, he didn't become the next guy who has only surfaced once in 2/3 of a century? Ugh, why did he even pick up a basketball?"
It is a testament to Jordan that his career spawned its own subgenre of sports analysis. Unfortunately, "expert" sports forecasts, like most other expert forecasts, have the same pleasant tone as a test of the emergency broadcast system.
*We are also seeing it now in golf. Everyone is the next Tiger Woods.
Be like Mike and follow my Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne
The NBA is almost seventy years old. If we accept that there has only been one Jordan in seven decades, it follows that we cannot reasonably expect a new Jordan every year, or every few years. Furthermore, when we say that all these "next Jordans" didn't live up to their potential because they didn't become Michael Jordan II, we are again talking nonsense. We attached a demonstrably improbable expectation to them, and then criticized them for not meeting it. "Oh, he didn't become the next guy who has only surfaced once in 2/3 of a century? Ugh, why did he even pick up a basketball?"
It is a testament to Jordan that his career spawned its own subgenre of sports analysis. Unfortunately, "expert" sports forecasts, like most other expert forecasts, have the same pleasant tone as a test of the emergency broadcast system.
*We are also seeing it now in golf. Everyone is the next Tiger Woods.
Be like Mike and follow my Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Occam's Razor and Lance Armstrong
Occam's Razor: When you have two competing theories
that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.
They're not wrong to ask this. But this isn't the only way Occam's Razor can be applied.
When people are accused of engaging in elaborate plots,
commentators frequently dismiss the accusations by citing Occam's Razor.
"Don't you realize how many people would have to be involved?"
They're not wrong to ask this. But this isn't the only way Occam's Razor can be applied.
In Lance Armstrong's case, you could point to this very
simple explanation: when someone outperforms in his sport so
overwhelmingly--especially post-cancer--it is not unreasonable to suspect complex cheating. Another simple explanation: when major bucks (Libor scandal) are on the line,
it is not unreasonable to expect that people will go to very elaborate
(quiz show scandal) lengths--involving multiple actors--to accomplish this cheating.
Incredible outperformance of the sort Lance Armstrong (or
Bernie Madoff) demonstrated could lead you back to this always simple
explanation: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Backhands and Compliments
Whenever a player is interviewed on-court at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, the first sentence usually goes a little like this:
So great to be here in New York!
or
Really love it here in New York!
or
So happy to have the support of the fans here in New York!
And in the stands those big city cattle cowpie themselves each time New York is mentioned. Those jaded New Yorkers who have seen it all. Those wile New Yorkers you can't put anything past. Each time they fall for the oldest trick in the book; referencing the hometown.
No one does this kind of pandering at the other Grand Slams, which is weird when you consider that those tournaments also take place in grand locations.
The French Open is in Paris. The city of love. The city of lights. The city where newlyweds go to put a bow on their marriage. The city where oldieweds go looking for a way to tolerate each other for a few more years. The city where gals with terminal illness go to regret not running off with that waiter they thought loved them but who in reality forget their junk-riddled cabooses the second they left the cafe.
Paris is perhaps the most written about city on Earth, yet you never hear players say:
I really love playing on the red clay here is Paris! Red like my heart, 'cause I love this city!
Wimbledon--the most coveted Grand Slam--is in London. The home of the Crown. The nerve center of what not so long ago was the most far-reaching empire in human history. Sam Johnson once remarked that, "When a man is tired of London he is tired of life." Can you imagine a Wimbledon player saying:
So happy to be here under these grimy gray skies in front of you sour snot fans. But hey, that's London for ya! (raises pint glass)
You may laugh at these examples, but are they that much more ridiculous than the spectacle of watching players who travel the world beg for the approval of fans in New York, many of whom are from out of town?
The Australian Open is held in Melbourne. Melbourne, the city of...well, three out of four ain't bad.
If players at the Australian Open bothered to reference Melbourne, it would be something like:
I hate Melbourne. You hate Melbourne. And if it weren't so far away from everywhere else we all know you'd leave.
Watch me hit groundstrokes over on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/greatMikePayne
So great to be here in New York!
or
Really love it here in New York!
or
So happy to have the support of the fans here in New York!
And in the stands those big city cattle cowpie themselves each time New York is mentioned. Those jaded New Yorkers who have seen it all. Those wile New Yorkers you can't put anything past. Each time they fall for the oldest trick in the book; referencing the hometown.
No one does this kind of pandering at the other Grand Slams, which is weird when you consider that those tournaments also take place in grand locations.
The French Open is in Paris. The city of love. The city of lights. The city where newlyweds go to put a bow on their marriage. The city where oldieweds go looking for a way to tolerate each other for a few more years. The city where gals with terminal illness go to regret not running off with that waiter they thought loved them but who in reality forget their junk-riddled cabooses the second they left the cafe.
Paris is perhaps the most written about city on Earth, yet you never hear players say:
I really love playing on the red clay here is Paris! Red like my heart, 'cause I love this city!
Wimbledon--the most coveted Grand Slam--is in London. The home of the Crown. The nerve center of what not so long ago was the most far-reaching empire in human history. Sam Johnson once remarked that, "When a man is tired of London he is tired of life." Can you imagine a Wimbledon player saying:
So happy to be here under these grimy gray skies in front of you sour snot fans. But hey, that's London for ya! (raises pint glass)
You may laugh at these examples, but are they that much more ridiculous than the spectacle of watching players who travel the world beg for the approval of fans in New York, many of whom are from out of town?
The Australian Open is held in Melbourne. Melbourne, the city of...well, three out of four ain't bad.
If players at the Australian Open bothered to reference Melbourne, it would be something like:
I hate Melbourne. You hate Melbourne. And if it weren't so far away from everywhere else we all know you'd leave.
Watch me hit groundstrokes over on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/greatMikePayne
Friday, June 24, 2011
40C-Love
At every tennis Major (save the still chaste Wimbledon), at some point some female player wears an outfit so skimpy it gets commentators asking: "Is this outfit too skimpy?"
But are today's skimpy outfits really any more revealing than the tighty-whitey short-shorts the men used to wear? If Connors's and McEnroe's shorts had been any more revealing they would have qualified as x-rays.
I'm sure those questioning today's outfits would argue that the revealing attire of the Williams sisters and Maria Sharapova are made to pique the "prurient interest," whereas Connors and McEnroe were just wearing utilitarian garb (as though men can't play up sex appeal). From there the complaints would fall along familiar battle lines; conservatives griping about the women no longer being ladies and progressives griping about the women being objectifed.
For the conversatives who say these outfits are a sign of modern decay, remember that in ancient Greece, the Olympians competed naked.
For the progressives; sex appeal is the only edge female athletes have on men. Sports are about competition, and sex is the only way women can compete with male athletes for attention. Forget about retiring jerseys. Start retiring sports bras.
What the controversy comes down to is that these scantilly clad players are women, and women showing skin always brings out the Keystone Skin Cops. The men could string their rackets with their small intestines and no one would blink.
At least the women wearing the least clothing are among the most dominant. If the critics had their way, these heroines would dress more demurely and risk being overshadowed by the Anna Kournikovas of the world. Progressives especially should champion the minimal clothing, because the outfits of the Williams and Sharapova increase their star power; meaning they will be seen by more little girls who will then be inspired to pick up tennis rackets themselves. You want fewer girls playing with Barbie? Let Serena, Venus, and Maria compete tennis-wise and looks-wise and living Barbies who can't hit with the big girls (Kournikova) won't steal the entire spotlight (when Kournikova played, they may as well have hung the net between two stripper poles).
But are today's skimpy outfits really any more revealing than the tighty-whitey short-shorts the men used to wear? If Connors's and McEnroe's shorts had been any more revealing they would have qualified as x-rays.
I'm sure those questioning today's outfits would argue that the revealing attire of the Williams sisters and Maria Sharapova are made to pique the "prurient interest," whereas Connors and McEnroe were just wearing utilitarian garb (as though men can't play up sex appeal). From there the complaints would fall along familiar battle lines; conservatives griping about the women no longer being ladies and progressives griping about the women being objectifed.
For the conversatives who say these outfits are a sign of modern decay, remember that in ancient Greece, the Olympians competed naked.
For the progressives; sex appeal is the only edge female athletes have on men. Sports are about competition, and sex is the only way women can compete with male athletes for attention. Forget about retiring jerseys. Start retiring sports bras.
What the controversy comes down to is that these scantilly clad players are women, and women showing skin always brings out the Keystone Skin Cops. The men could string their rackets with their small intestines and no one would blink.
At least the women wearing the least clothing are among the most dominant. If the critics had their way, these heroines would dress more demurely and risk being overshadowed by the Anna Kournikovas of the world. Progressives especially should champion the minimal clothing, because the outfits of the Williams and Sharapova increase their star power; meaning they will be seen by more little girls who will then be inspired to pick up tennis rackets themselves. You want fewer girls playing with Barbie? Let Serena, Venus, and Maria compete tennis-wise and looks-wise and living Barbies who can't hit with the big girls (Kournikova) won't steal the entire spotlight (when Kournikova played, they may as well have hung the net between two stripper poles).
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Savage Truth
Famed pro wrestler Randy "Macho Man" Savage just died. This week I watched comedian Mike Lawrence do a bit about how all of the Super Bowl QBs were still alive, while pro wrestlers die quite frequently. Given that both professions frequently result in serious injury and have massive drug/steroid cultures, it is interesting that pro football seems to prove far less fatal.
Could it be that football is much more of a meritocracy, whereas pro wrestling, like the rest of showbusiness, is random and maddening, and thus more likely to trigger self-destructive meltdowns? I would also guess that like every other sector of showbiz, pro wrestling attracts troubled misfits who need exaggerated praise to fill some void in their souls. Unfortunately, no set of tights will ever be tight enough to hold back the sadness.
Could it be that football is much more of a meritocracy, whereas pro wrestling, like the rest of showbusiness, is random and maddening, and thus more likely to trigger self-destructive meltdowns? I would also guess that like every other sector of showbiz, pro wrestling attracts troubled misfits who need exaggerated praise to fill some void in their souls. Unfortunately, no set of tights will ever be tight enough to hold back the sadness.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Coming to a Half-Empty Stadium Near You
Like David Beckham before him, Thierry Henry becomes soccer’s latest star striker to be plucked from Europe in hopes of spurring Americans to care about MLS:
Thierry Henry's move to the New York Red Bulls will help Major League Soccer in its goal to become one of the "world's elite soccer leagues'', according to the organisation's vice-president of marketing and communications.
As it was with Beckham, the Henry experiment will fail.
Beckham had far more fame and visibility ahead of his coming to the LA Galaxy, and that still wasn’t enough to attract anything beyond a short term buzz for the team and league. Henry is much less known in America, so the idea of turning him into a “star” ambassador for the game is fantasy.
Beckham hailed from the UK, a country most Americans are still relatively well-disposed to. Thierry was born near Paris, and is bound to trigger the usual slap-dick antics Americans heap on anything French-related (brace yourself for hacky French accents and deafeningly unfunny surrender jokes).
And like Beckham by the time he reached MLS, Thierry is past his prime, so it is doubtful we are about to be treated to a one-man exhibition of soccer at its finest that will inspire a generation of Americans to ditch LeBron, cast off the Air Jordans of their forefathers, and demand a pair of soccer cleats.
A similar “ambassadorship” was tried with Pelé, who in 1975 was recruited to the New York Cosmos of the now defunct NASL. Pelé was a more accomplished and more US visible player than Henry. Pelé also had some political cache, and was playing in the era of Muhammad Ali; probably the golden age of politicized sport (Henry lacks these advantages). And despite all that, and despite playing in a media-saturated glamour town, Pelé’s presence failed to reap the lasting dividends US soccer believers were banking on.
Can New York soccer lightning fail to strike twice? Yes it can.
Henry will spark some sizzle early on, but that sizzle won’t even reach the levels ignited by Beckham’s arrival. Then we’ll be barraged with the familiar round of tired, soul-searching columns wondering why Americans don’t get soccer. The proposed solutions will be the usual calls for “better coaching” and “better promotion at the youth level.” Maybe the conversation should instead begin with the fact that the rest of Earth calls it football, and we already have a sport called football, thanks very much, whose popularity and stature towers over all other US athletics.
Hilarity aside, maybe it’s as simple as Americans just preferring high scoring sports. Hockey scores are similar to soccer’s, and in terms of visibility, hockey has long been a distant fourth among the four major US team sports. Coincidence?
Thierry Henry's move to the New York Red Bulls will help Major League Soccer in its goal to become one of the "world's elite soccer leagues'', according to the organisation's vice-president of marketing and communications.
As it was with Beckham, the Henry experiment will fail.
Beckham had far more fame and visibility ahead of his coming to the LA Galaxy, and that still wasn’t enough to attract anything beyond a short term buzz for the team and league. Henry is much less known in America, so the idea of turning him into a “star” ambassador for the game is fantasy.
Beckham hailed from the UK, a country most Americans are still relatively well-disposed to. Thierry was born near Paris, and is bound to trigger the usual slap-dick antics Americans heap on anything French-related (brace yourself for hacky French accents and deafeningly unfunny surrender jokes).
And like Beckham by the time he reached MLS, Thierry is past his prime, so it is doubtful we are about to be treated to a one-man exhibition of soccer at its finest that will inspire a generation of Americans to ditch LeBron, cast off the Air Jordans of their forefathers, and demand a pair of soccer cleats.
A similar “ambassadorship” was tried with Pelé, who in 1975 was recruited to the New York Cosmos of the now defunct NASL. Pelé was a more accomplished and more US visible player than Henry. Pelé also had some political cache, and was playing in the era of Muhammad Ali; probably the golden age of politicized sport (Henry lacks these advantages). And despite all that, and despite playing in a media-saturated glamour town, Pelé’s presence failed to reap the lasting dividends US soccer believers were banking on.
Can New York soccer lightning fail to strike twice? Yes it can.
Henry will spark some sizzle early on, but that sizzle won’t even reach the levels ignited by Beckham’s arrival. Then we’ll be barraged with the familiar round of tired, soul-searching columns wondering why Americans don’t get soccer. The proposed solutions will be the usual calls for “better coaching” and “better promotion at the youth level.” Maybe the conversation should instead begin with the fact that the rest of Earth calls it football, and we already have a sport called football, thanks very much, whose popularity and stature towers over all other US athletics.
Hilarity aside, maybe it’s as simple as Americans just preferring high scoring sports. Hockey scores are similar to soccer’s, and in terms of visibility, hockey has long been a distant fourth among the four major US team sports. Coincidence?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Footloose Officiating
I am pleased Germany and Argentina won their recent World Cup matches. I am displeased by the widely broadcast assumption that the faulty goal gifted to Argentina and the authentic one stolen from England “didn’t matter” because the final scores were lopsided anyway.
So this means the disputed goals weren't relevant? Really?
What we don’t know is how much differently the teams would have performed had the disputed goals been officiated correctly. Would a Mexico still tied at 0-0 pressed as recklessly, allowing Argentina to control the ball and put corresponding pressure on the Mexicans' already stretched defense?
How much differently might England have tackled the second half if not for the burdensome knowledge that they had to score A THIRD GOAL just to be credited for the two needed to even up with Germany? Might this partly explain their deflated, dispirited play? We don’t know.
It's not as though the blown calls came at insignificant times either, like in the 89th minute of a 3-0 blowout. In the case of Argentina, it was the first goal of the match, and with England, it came at 2-1, so stand-up refereeing would have meant a tie game. All the more reason these botched calls shouldn't get the "all's well that ends well" treatment. To excuse them as "mere lessons for the future" even though they occurred with the outcomes still very much in doubt ignores the precious concept of MOMENTUM that sports commentators spend so much time prattling about.
If we're going to pretend each moment of each match happens in a vacuum, why have rules at all? Coming to a field near you: Anarcho-footie! You thought soccer riots resembled Valhalla before...
In the end, this all winds up sounding like bad string theory. No, we can't go back and magically replay the games to see exactly what would have unfolded had the goals been judged properly. Of course, we wouldn’t even be discussing magic replays if FIFA had instant replay.
So this means the disputed goals weren't relevant? Really?
What we don’t know is how much differently the teams would have performed had the disputed goals been officiated correctly. Would a Mexico still tied at 0-0 pressed as recklessly, allowing Argentina to control the ball and put corresponding pressure on the Mexicans' already stretched defense?
How much differently might England have tackled the second half if not for the burdensome knowledge that they had to score A THIRD GOAL just to be credited for the two needed to even up with Germany? Might this partly explain their deflated, dispirited play? We don’t know.
It's not as though the blown calls came at insignificant times either, like in the 89th minute of a 3-0 blowout. In the case of Argentina, it was the first goal of the match, and with England, it came at 2-1, so stand-up refereeing would have meant a tie game. All the more reason these botched calls shouldn't get the "all's well that ends well" treatment. To excuse them as "mere lessons for the future" even though they occurred with the outcomes still very much in doubt ignores the precious concept of MOMENTUM that sports commentators spend so much time prattling about.
If we're going to pretend each moment of each match happens in a vacuum, why have rules at all? Coming to a field near you: Anarcho-footie! You thought soccer riots resembled Valhalla before...
In the end, this all winds up sounding like bad string theory. No, we can't go back and magically replay the games to see exactly what would have unfolded had the goals been judged properly. Of course, we wouldn’t even be discussing magic replays if FIFA had instant replay.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
IMPERIO DO MAL
Having overheard many fellow countrymen heap generic praise on Brazil’s soccer team, I sense that for Americans who don’t get soccer but feel the need to have “a stake” in the World Cup, Brazil is like the Yankees. In other words, the perfect team for “fans” who want to root for a team liable to make a good run (allowing them to keep “supporting” “their team” late into the tournament and feel like a winner), but who are too lazy to do the homework needed to pick a squad other than the most bleedingly obvious one.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
World Cup Drinking Game
Eager to play John Bonham? Try doing a shot each time a commentator makes reference to one of the currently crumbling EU countries (Portugal, Spain, etc.) “needing this win more than ever" thanks to their dire financial straits. Other heavy-handed phrases to listen for; “right now it’s about more than soccer” and “giving people with little to cheer for something to celebrate.”
By the way, I'm surprised Greece lost, as they have so many strikers...
By the way, I'm surprised Greece lost, as they have so many strikers...
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Also-Skieds
The emptiest “scandal” to emerge from Vancouver’s Olympic snowjob is the allegedly “sexist” (What’s wrong with being sexy?) Sports Illustrated cover featuring skier Lindsey Vonn. To those with evil, procreation-positive minds, this attractive downhiller is supposedly posed in a sexualized manner.
The blubbering couldn’t be more predictable: it’s a setback for female athletes and why can’t she just be seen as a good skier? and blah, etcetera, yawn. [Clears throat] Well, one reason she can’t just be seen as a good skier is because no matter how good she is, talent-wise, she’ll never be on the same slope as the best male skier (or even the pretty good male skiers). Therefore, viewers who aren’t hardcore ski fans need additional enticement to care about her. Funny how no one complains when a female athlete (or any non-dominant athlete) receives an extra PR boost because of some human interest element; an illness she overcame or the recent death of a loved one. But let it be her cleavage that short-circuits the applause meter and suddenly 49% of America is supposed to stop and introspect.
Athletics=competition, and the only plane on which female athletes can compete with men is sexiness. The best woman is the best among the less athletic gender. All the equal coverage demands and Title IX bullying won’t undo that reality. Even kids understand this. The phrase “throws like a girl” didn’t fall out of the sky (unlike the hopeless moon passes women throw).
I think we find an apt analogue in boxing. There is a reason heavyweights have traditionally been the most watched…because they’re the biggest, and the best heavyweight will defeat the best flyweight every time. Sure, boxing diehards can make a million arguments about the nuances of the lighter weight classes, and yes, in the P4P rankings, the Sugar Ray Robinsons are generally ranked above the Joe Fraziers. But that doesn’t matter to John Q. Public. His druthers are to watch the fighters who can stomp all the other fighters. He doesn’t care about the sweet science any more than he cares about meteorology. So when the heavyweight division is decent, it easily overshadows the other weight classes. The world’s best middleweight is still "just" a middleweight.
A few years ago, women’s tennis started grabbing headlines. Did the Amen Corner for female athletics shut up and bask? What, and go against type? Instead they bellyached that this newfound attention wasn’t due to a purist interest in female tennis, but rather to the influx of sexualized tennis players; classic beauties like Kournikova and provocative dressers like Serena. They were 100% correct. In most sports, women don't galvanize fans as much as their male counterparts, leaving sex appeal as the only equalizer. So you can either have steamy and ultimately successful marketing from players like Serena Williams, or you can have the following audience for the Ladies’ Singles Final: the ball boys, the line judges, and the competitors’ parents (if they can remember to set their alarms).
The blubbering couldn’t be more predictable: it’s a setback for female athletes and why can’t she just be seen as a good skier? and blah, etcetera, yawn. [Clears throat] Well, one reason she can’t just be seen as a good skier is because no matter how good she is, talent-wise, she’ll never be on the same slope as the best male skier (or even the pretty good male skiers). Therefore, viewers who aren’t hardcore ski fans need additional enticement to care about her. Funny how no one complains when a female athlete (or any non-dominant athlete) receives an extra PR boost because of some human interest element; an illness she overcame or the recent death of a loved one. But let it be her cleavage that short-circuits the applause meter and suddenly 49% of America is supposed to stop and introspect.
Athletics=competition, and the only plane on which female athletes can compete with men is sexiness. The best woman is the best among the less athletic gender. All the equal coverage demands and Title IX bullying won’t undo that reality. Even kids understand this. The phrase “throws like a girl” didn’t fall out of the sky (unlike the hopeless moon passes women throw).
I think we find an apt analogue in boxing. There is a reason heavyweights have traditionally been the most watched…because they’re the biggest, and the best heavyweight will defeat the best flyweight every time. Sure, boxing diehards can make a million arguments about the nuances of the lighter weight classes, and yes, in the P4P rankings, the Sugar Ray Robinsons are generally ranked above the Joe Fraziers. But that doesn’t matter to John Q. Public. His druthers are to watch the fighters who can stomp all the other fighters. He doesn’t care about the sweet science any more than he cares about meteorology. So when the heavyweight division is decent, it easily overshadows the other weight classes. The world’s best middleweight is still "just" a middleweight.
A few years ago, women’s tennis started grabbing headlines. Did the Amen Corner for female athletics shut up and bask? What, and go against type? Instead they bellyached that this newfound attention wasn’t due to a purist interest in female tennis, but rather to the influx of sexualized tennis players; classic beauties like Kournikova and provocative dressers like Serena. They were 100% correct. In most sports, women don't galvanize fans as much as their male counterparts, leaving sex appeal as the only equalizer. So you can either have steamy and ultimately successful marketing from players like Serena Williams, or you can have the following audience for the Ladies’ Singles Final: the ball boys, the line judges, and the competitors’ parents (if they can remember to set their alarms).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)